The Gates of Hell are WIDE open
08 Jun, 2006 
270 Comments
· print
· email
To welcome Zarqawi. And it’s been waiting for quite a while for this prick to be picked.
Good riddance, to hell you go and all your ilk, you criminal bastard. And let this be a lesson to all terrorists: you will be hunted like rats in sewers and you will be eradicated.
Congratulations Iraq and the “Muslim Ummah” for this great news… How I wished it to have happened a day earlier, it would have been very fitting if he had been snuffed on 666!
Jared, got to respect this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5169600.stm
Its a good start. Hope it extends further and to everyone in custody.
Lujayne,
I’m glad this happened, because it reasserts the rule of law in the separation of powers between the three branches of American government – especially between the executive and the legislative. Honestly though, I think it’s unlikely to have any immediate impact, though the long range implications are powerful.
This is my best understanding:
As a result fo the Supreme Court ruling, the Bush Administration has directed the military commander at Guantanamo to comply with article 3 of the Geneva conventions, which pertains to the treatment of prisoners. The commander at Guantanano, questioned directly by a US senate delegation about what changes would be made in prisoner treatment to achieve compliance, insisted that there would be none because they were already in compliance.
The ruling can’t be applied to prisoners whose existense or location is ambiguous. For instance, those subjected to third country rendition.
The real effect is that, contrary to the original assertions of the Bush Administration, prisoners cannot be processed by military tribunals where they can’t face accusers, or even be present. Congress however, could write legislation that permits this, and all would be as it was before, though that seems very unlikely. Many members of conrgess, including senior Republicans, are finally indicating their willingness to check executive power.
Louis Brandeis, a Supreme Court Justice from 1916 – 1939, famously said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. If due process were available from the beginning, we may have avoided a lot of image problems and abuse scandals. Hopefully, we’re headed back on to the right track.
Jared
I was encouraged by the ruling.
Who was it who wrote “We hold these truths to be self evident…”. If it is not true for everybody then it is not true for anybody.
Jared: “I’m glad this happened, because it reasserts the rule of law in the separation of powers between the three branches of American government – especially between the executive and the legislative. Honestly though, I think it’s unlikely to have any immediate impact, though the long range implications are powerful.”
It does enforce separation of powers but rather the Supreme Court is overruling the legislative branch’s ability to make treaties, in this case by granting terrorists who do not comply with the Geneva Convention with the protection of it and additional rights to be tried in domestic courts.
Jared: “As a result fo the Supreme Court ruling, the Bush Administration has directed the military commander at Guantanamo to comply with article 3 of the Geneva conventions, which pertains to the treatment of prisoners. The commander at Guantanano, questioned directly by a US senate delegation about what changes would be made in prisoner treatment to achieve compliance, insisted that there would be none because they were already in compliance.”
This is a distorted spin on reality. The Bush Administration did not order Gitmo to comply with the Geneva Convention. You’re implying falsely that they had no such orders previously. The Bush Administration passed on the ruling of the Supreme Court.
This is rougly equivalent to a situation where an Air Force maintenance squadron is informally checking oil in jet engines every hundred hours and then Air Force HQ passes on a manufacturer’s recommendation to make hundred hour oil checks.
Jared: “The real effect is that, contrary to the original assertions of the Bush Administration, prisoners cannot be processed by military tribunals where they can’t face accusers, or even be present. Congress however, could write legislation that permits this, and all would be as it was before, though that seems very unlikely. Many members of conrgess, including senior Republicans, are finally indicating their willingness to check executive power.”
Jared, do you really think it is a good idea to hold open trials of illegal combatants making war on America and produce the informants who identified them, the covert technical means by which we gathered evidence, the chain of custody of that evidence, and a host of lawyers, judges, jurors, and witnesses who can be threatened or killed? Why do you liberals want to give away every advantage to the terrorists?
Jared: “Louis Brandeis, a Supreme Court Justice from 1916 – 1939, famously said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. If due process were available from the beginning, we may have avoided a lot of image problems and abuse scandals. Hopefully, we’re headed back on to the right track.”
When Judge Brandeis wanted to disinfect with sunlight, was his intent to illuminate our secret agents, means, and methods for the terrorists?
Steve
Will: “I was encouraged by the ruling. Who was it who wrote “We hold these truths to be self evident…”. If it is not true for everybody then it is not true for anybody.”
Was it the intent of Jefferson and the founding fathers to guarantee to terrorists the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Please explain to me why America should guarantee to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the Sep 11, the right to the Pursuit of Happiness which, in his case, involves killing as many Americans as he possibly can?
Do you guys ever think about what you’re saying?
Steve
Do you guys ever think about what you’re saying?
Steve
Not me. I am unencumbered by the thought process.
The point is that you have the rights to start with. They can and should be taken away with just cause. Due process is everything.
Foreigners have no right to due process in America unless they are legitimate visitors. Terrorists caught on the battlefied with no identifying insignia nor uniform have no rights at all, not even to life. They can be legally executed on the spot. American citizens turned terrorist like Padilla have a right to due process in an American court. Terrorists caught on the battlefield outside America have no rights as an American citizen, only the rights specified under international law. In their case, that’s hardly any rights since they are not legal combatants.
Steve
It is not about American or foreign rights. It is about human rights. It is not about how the world is treating me. It is about how am I treating the world.
Are you familiar at all with fractal geometry?
Jared,
You made an excellent point. The US lost a lot of precious credibility when it put aside its respect for the law and human rights post Sept 11. If these men are really terrorists, and the US military has evidence to support their claims, whats to prevent them from presenting it in a court of law? If justice for the victims of terrorism is paramount, then why not try these men in courts of law to get their due punishment? I just dont understand what the point is of holding them indefinitely, without trial. To keep US agents, means and methods, safely above any law?
If a US soldier was being held by a foreign power (who considers him an enemy combatent, and there are plenty of those), would the US sit back and say, yep, they’re right, he’s a terrorist in their eyes, and not eligible for due process. The law is law, regardless of who it applies to. I would have liked to have seen it extend to other countries, not erode in the US.
and in fact now it seems Bush has conceded that the GTMO detainees are entitled to protection under the geneva conventions!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5169600.stm
i’ll dance in the streets for that one =)
Lujayne and Will, your comments are spot-on. One of the best things to surface in the public eye with this issue is the number of career US military JAG and line officers, and elected US politicians who identify as Conservative or Republican, who have been making the same points, either struggling through the military or civilian court system, behind closed doors in Washington, and sometimes even in the media.
Not to make too much of my (peacetime) military service, but I met many people there with different social and political philosophies than mine who I came to respect. Although my own views overlap with those of more conservative people a minority of the time, I’ve always known that most people in that camp were repulsed when Vice President Cheney was arguing for torture in the Senate.
Our strength comes mostly from our core shared values.
Jared
Zara,
If you’re interested in a more in-depth article from an American judicial and military perspective, I’d recommend the link below. Here’s an axcerpt from the header:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/07/hamdan-common-article-3-and-true.php
Our strength comes mostly from our core shared values.
And the ability to eventually get things right thru the process of law.
billT
I agree billT and if the law doesnt allow for the right action then it needs to be changed. Two bit dictators and ambulance chasing lawyers I expect to weasel around the letter of the law. I expect the govt of the US to do the right thing.
This is not WW2 and the laws governing warfare (oxymoron) need to reflect the reality.
I think one of the reasons the goverment doesnt want to try those at guantanamo in a public court of law stems from the simple fact that most of the time barring overwhelming evedence the justice department would loose to any good lawyer.
Anon: “I think one of the reasons the goverment doesnt want to try those at guantanamo in a public court of law stems from the simple fact that most of the time barring overwhelming evedence the justice department would loose to any good lawyer.”
Any lawyer could get any prisoner of war found not guilty because evidence is not collected in the chaos and fog of war. For example, if the US tried the German soldiers captured at Normandy to see if they had engaged in combat, it’s doubtful that any US soldier could match them to shots fired or soldiers killed. Of course, many of the witnesses would be dead or wounded. There are also no detectives to take statements on the battlefield nor evidence vans to collect fingerprints and blood samples.
This is one of dozens of reasons why it is foolish to treat combatants in a war as domestic criminals. There are international treaties which deal with international hostilities, none of which demand that prisoners be tried in a court of law to determine their offenses.
This mode of treating terrorism as a felony to be dealt with by the justice system was a disaster under Clinton. Do the liberals ever learn from their mistakes or are they doomed to repeat them endlessly to the detriment of the nation?
Steve
zara: “and in fact now it seems Bush has conceded that the GTMO detainees are entitled to protection under the geneva conventions! i’ll dance in the streets for that one =)”
And you remain indifferent that the jihadis and Baathists make no pretence of complying with the Geneva Convention. This week the jihadis released a video of them cutting the head off one of our soldiers. Where is your complaint of their non-compliance with the Geneva Convention, hypocrite?
Steve
Jared –
thanks for the link the jurist reports on Guantanamo Bay have been very good, through and through.
i think you’re right about shared values, i like the idea of and (believe in) our common humanity .. look fwd to the day when we can all dance in the streets together. peace
Conservatives in the US claim that the media is biased when their leaders and heroes are criticized. Of course, the right champion gutter snipes like Ann Coulter, which I find incredibly humorous.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_media
Claims that media in the United States show liberal bias
“Liberal media” is a phrase used by some critics in American political discourse to express the view that the American media generally has a liberal bias. The expression is frequently used by critics of the network news shows of CBS, ABC, and NBC, cable channels CNN and MSNBC as well as major newspapers, news-wires, and radio outlets, especially the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, the Associated Press, and National Public Radio (NPR]). [4] [5] [6]
ABC News political director Mark Halperin has claimed that reporters are predominantly liberal in outlook, and inevitably bring some of that background to their reporting in the form of assumptions that can be seen as bias.[2]
People who use the phrase “liberal bias” claim that liberal biases are evident in both the choice (what stories are favored, or “played,” over others) and coverage (how stories are researched, portrayed, and presented). According to their perceptions, there is a “slant” or “spin” in the news that tends to promote a liberal agenda.
Those who support the concept of a liberal media bias often also claim that as individuals most journalists, and news producers, hold liberal political views. In a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters claimed to be or lean toward being Democratic or liberal. Only 15% claimed to be or lean toward being Republican or conservative. A survey by the Pew Research Center and Project for Excellence in Journalism in 2004 found 34% of journalists describing themselves as liberal, 54% as moderate, and only 7% as conservative.
Some argue that even asking politicians about their plans to solve social issues is a form of liberal bias, on the grounds that such a question must be based on the liberal assumption that government has a role in solving social or economic problems.
Proponents of Liberal Bias claims cite other examples such as:
* Promotion of “deviant” or anti-Christian lifestyles, such as feminism, atheism, homosexuality, abortion, or illicit drug use,
* Emphasis on extremist views, such as deep ecology, global warming, or animal rights
* Promotion of communism or other anti-business ideologies
* Critical coverage of Republicans, sometimes portrayed as as less intelligent, yet are soft on Democrats
Those who support the view that a liberal media bias exists, have said that the media has a tendency to inflame stories which suggest that guns in the hands of private citizens are responsible for crimes (and ignore those when a gun has been used for positive purposes in law enforcement or self-protection — this would be classified as spiking).
Many of the positions in the preceding paragraph are supported by a 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers of Dartmouth College: Press Bias and Politics. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers (including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle), Kuypers found that the mainstream press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who expressed points of view further to the left were generally ignored, whereas those who expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often actively denigrated or labeled as holding a minority point of view. In short, if a political leader, regardless of party, spoke within the press-supported range of acceptable discourse, he or she would receive positive press coverage. If a politician, again regardless of party, were to speak outside of this range, he or she would receive negative press or be ignored. Kuypers also found that the liberal points of view expressed in editorial and opinion pages were found in hard news coverage of the same issues. Although focusing primarily on the issues of race and homosexuality, Kuypers found that the press injected opinion into its news coverage of other issues such as welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control; in all cases favoring a liberal point of view.
Conservative critics claim that the editorial pages of many large U.S. newspapers such as The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, allegedly have a more-or-less explicitly liberal point of view. They claim, however, that a wall exists between editorial and reporting. Some critics see this wall as crumbling in the heat of partisan politics. Newer media, such as television and some web news sources, do not distinguish as clearly between the editorial department and the news department. Conservatives frequently accuse the big three networks of liberal bias in their news reporting. This view is represented by the slogan of Fox News, “Fair and balanced”, which suggests that the competition is not fair and balanced.
Some people claim that bias is present not just in news programs but in the networks’ other programs as well. Some entertainment programs have been accused of having a subtle political bias.
In addition to accusations of intentional bias, some accuse reporters of being lazy, and claim that this creates a tendency toward liberal bias, since it takes less effort to challenge politicians and government officials with questions than it does to investigate the actual causes of social problems. Reporters (even conservative reporters) may have a tendency to take the easy path and confront officials with emotion laden social problems and ask “What are you going to do about it?”.
It has been observed that bias that seems to be politically motivated may be motivated by sensationalism rather than politics.
Lets not forget who the real terrorists are and those who continue to murder Iraqis in cold blood – yes thats right Americans and their allies still doing their evil work in Iraq even as I write! Lets hope that Bahrainis have not succombed to the terrorist BS that America churns out by the second and hope they see the truth behind the suffering of Iraqis.